Examination of Witnesses (Questions 187
- 199)
WEDNESDAY 7 JULY 2004
KEITH HILL
MP AND LORD
ROOKER
Q187 Chairman: Thank you, Ministers,
for joining us this afternoon. It is a great pleasure to see two
of you and not just one. We hope that your evidence will be twice
as effective as a result. We are obviously looking today at the
Barker Review. The final Barker report was published by the Treasury
on the Treasury's website and announced by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, although it was originally commissioned jointly by
your Department and the Treasury. Could you just explain what
role the ODPM had in commissioning the Barker report and in setting
its terms of reference?
Lord Rooker: Well, it was a joint
operation. I would not fuss about which website it was published
on, the main thing was it was published. It was a joint operation,
jointly commissioned between John and Gordon when we had been
having lots of ongoing discussions since the publication of the
Sustainable Communities Plan in February last year and I suppose
there had been constant, almost daily discussions between ourselves
and the Treasury since ODPM was formed two years ago, evidenced
in some ways by the result of the Spending Review in 2002, where
we realised we needed a step change in housing production. One
of the consequences of this was the production of the Sustainable
Communities Plan but while that is a road map for the Department,
it was thought the economics of housing and the supply of housing
ought to be looked at by a specialist and that is why it was commissioned
with Kate Barker in the lead. She had access to ODPM and probably
spent as much time with ODPM officials as she did with Treasury
officials. I was personally present when she met John Prescott
on a couple of occasions. So it was a joint operation.
Q188 Chairman: So you are satisfied
that the whole issue of planning, as well as the issue of house
prices, was properly reflected in the terms of reference she was
originally given, are you?
Lord Rooker: To the best of my
knowledge. Of course Keith and I have swapped briefs slightly,
but at that time I had got the brief on planning. What I was surprised
about, I do not mind admitting that, was when the final report
was published early this year, at Budget time, to see Kate Barker
quoted as saying she did not realise when she took the commission
that the Planning Bill had been introduced into your House four
months beforehand. There was no secret about the Planning Bill.
In other words, we were doing things in government that were part
of her recommendations, to try and change the planning culture,
hence what is now the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. It
took a while to go through because it was a Bill which transferred
over from one session to another. So yes, we were satisfied about
that; no problem at all.
Q189 Chairman: You say you were surprised
that she did not know about it. Did anyone make any effort to
point this out to her, because it might have been relevant to
what she was working on?
Lord Rooker: Well, I personally
was not present when she was given the brief, but the brief included
the planning and the hurdles and the barriers to the supply of
housing, which is something we have been very concerned about
in any event. We have to cut through some of the bull, of course,
you have heard about planning from the developers. It is not quite
sometimes what you see in the headlines in the newspapers. But
it does not devalue her report because the fact is she was making
recommendations that fortuitously we were already under way with.
So I see that as a plus, not as a negative.
Keith Hill: Although you will
be aware that her report does contain some proposals in the planning
area, nevertheless she has indicated publicly that she believes
that the Planning Act, as it now is, the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act, does represent a very useful move forward in terms
of achieving the planning reform that she is sympathetic to.
Q190 Chairman: Okay. We have got
the report now, so how are you going to take this forward?
Lord Rooker: I freely admit—and
this is not to fudge it—it will be at least 18 months before
there is a definitive—I do not suppose there will ever be
a final Government pronouncement on it. It is being taken forward
by a task force to consider the multitude of recommendations.
At the same time, I have to say that we are proceeding with the
operation of the Communities Plan via the growth areas and other
issues with the market with Pathfinders in the North, so what
we do not want is any hiatus and stop there. What we take is the
Communities Plan objective of the extra 200,000 dwellings over
that which was already planned for the next 12 years. That is
the baseline on which Barker starts, in other words. So we have
got a big operation under way for the Communities Plan to deliver
an extra 200,000. Barker is on top of that; in other words, we
have got to work hard to get to that plan, to the baseline of
Barker, which is why it is very important that we give some serious
consideration to the issues she has raised. So it will be at least
12 months before there will be major Government pronouncements
on the way forward. Some may require legislation, some may not.
Q191 Chairman: Has the task force
been set a deadline?
Lord Rooker: A good question!
I certainly hope so, because I keep seeing it in my briefs that
we will be pronouncing in about 12 to 18 months.
Q192 Chairman: You might like to
set them a deadline if they have not got one.
Lord Rooker: Yes, but I will check.
There probably has been, but there are one or two task forces
on at the moment and we have got some imminently due to report.
This is an ongoing process for us. This is part of the process,
it is not a one-off. It is not as though it is happening in isolation.
There is the Egan task force also which is working in parallel.
We will have that report fairly soon. In other words, we are not
waiting to stop to find out about what the overall scenario is
as a result of Barker, which may require some changes in legislation,
not least financial legislation.
Keith Hill: As Lord Rooker said,
there is a multitude of recommendations in Barker and it is, therefore,
unlikely that there will be, as it were, a single response on
the part of Government to Barker. Nonetheless, it is clear and
I think now well-known that there are work streams going ahead
in relation to some of the specific recommendations in Barker,
for example you will be aware that in place of the traditional
section 106 planning gain proposals Kate Barker recommends a planning
gain supplement and we have made it clear that we will consult
on that, with the expectation of announcing a conclusion towards
the end of 2005. You will also be aware that in the planning domain
she recommended a merger of the regional housing and the regional
planning boards. We have accepted that and we expect to go out
to consultation on that proposal in the very near future.
Q193 Chairman: Is there anything
that you have explicitly rejected at this stage?
Lord Rooker: A quick knee-jerk
reaction to Barker is what we explicitly rejected. No, that is
serious, because it would be very seductive to get a report like
that.
Q194 Chairman: Well, we have just
heard you have accepted two.
Keith Hill: No, no, we have not
accepted two. No, we accepted the proposal on the merger of the
housing and the planning boards, but we are consulting on the
planning gain supplement.
Q195 Mr Francois: Minister, when
was that decision taken to merge the housing and planning boards
at regional level?
Keith Hill: My recollection is
that that was announced by the Chancellor when he reported to
the House in, of course, his Budget statement on the Barker report.
Mr Francois: Thank you.
Q196 Chairman: Just going back to
the task force, who is actually on it?
Lord Rooker: A good question.
If we have got a list of names, we will give you a list of names.
Q197 Chairman: If you could write
to us with the list of names and parties, that would be interesting.
Lord Rooker: Yes, sure.
Q198 Chairman: Are you aware of whether
or not there is a planner actually on the task force?
Lord Rooker: Well, you could argue
planners are the root cause of the problem! That is what some
people will say, but we take advice from a wide range of people.
Whether there is a planner on it or not, you can be assured that
the planning issue will be taken. I am going to be in trouble
here!
Keith Hill: You are sitting next
to the nation's Planning Minister! I have an industry and a profession
to protect here, so I want to distance myself from the observations
of my beloved colleague!
Q199 Chairman: I thought there would
be trouble having both of you here this afternoon! But seriously,
there are huge implications, as Keith Hill as said, for the whole
planning regime and for local authorities, and so on, and it seems
to me a little odd that you cannot tell us whether or not there
is in fact a planner represented on the task force which is taking
all this forward.
Lord Rooker: Well, at the moment,
I know it is July but it is still early days post-Budget. There
has been a lot of internal discussion across the two Departments
at official level. We have got, of course, professional planners
in ODPM, as opposed to local authority planners and private sector
planners. They have taken advice on this from a range of people.
As Keith says, we will not be going out to consult on Barker per
se. The different aspects of the recommendations will be including
different people, so planners in some meetings, developers in
others; it is going to vary. We will provide you with what information
we can about named people and their professional qualifications,
and it may not just be on a task force, it may be people they
have already consulted or set up in particular working groups.
This is the way of the world. But it would not be one pronouncement
in totality on Barker. As Keith has said, it is much more complicated
than that.
| 
